See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.

net/publication/325022530

Students' Satisfaction in Higher Education Literature Review

Article · January 2017

DOI: 10.12691/education-5-5-9

CITATIONS READS

7 6,236

3 authors, including:

Salinda Weerasinghe R.L.s. Fernando

Rajarata University of Sri Lanka University of Sri Jayewardenepura
4 PUBLICATIONS   12 CITATIONS    23 PUBLICATIONS   23 CITATIONS   

SEE PROFILE SEE PROFILE

Some of the authors of this publication are also working on these related projects:

Students’ Satisfaction in Higher Education Literature Review View project

Employee Engagement View project

All content following this page was uploaded by Salinda Weerasinghe on 08 May 2018.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

American Journal of Educational Research, 2017, Vol. 5, No. 5, 533-539
Available online at http://pubs.sciepub.com/education/5/5/9
©Science and Education Publishing
DOI:10.12691/education-5-5-9

Students’ Satisfaction in Higher Education

Literature Review
IM Salinda Weerasinghe1,*, R. Lalitha, S. Fernando2
1
Department of Business Management, Faculty of Management Studies, Rajarata University of Sri Lanka, Sri Lanka
2
Department of Public Administration, Faculty of Management Studies and Commerce, University of Sri Jayewardenepura, Sri Lanka
*Corresponding author: salindaweerasinghe@gmail.com

Abstract Students’ satisfaction can be defined as a short-term attitude resulting from an evaluation of students’
educational experience, services and facilities. Earlier it was measured by common satisfaction frameworks but later
higher education specify satisfaction models were developed. The objective of this review is to render all available
constructive literature about students’ satisfaction with a sound theoretical and empirical background. Data were
collected from refereed journals and conference papers, and are constructively analyzed from different point of
views to filter a sound background for future studies. The first section of the paper discuss students’ satisfaction,
satisfaction models and frameworks used by previous researchers around the world and second section explain the
empirical findings of previous studies in real world context.
Keywords: students’ satisfaction, university facilities, degree program, university image, higher education
Cite This Article: IM Salinda Weerasinghe, and R. Lalitha, S. Fernando, “Students’ Satisfaction in Higher
Education Literature Review.” American Journal of Educational Research, vol. 5, no. 5 (2017): 533-539.
doi: 10.12691/education-5-5-9.

person fulfilled his or her needs and desires [55]. It is a

state felt by a person who has experienced performance or
1. Higher Education an outcome that fulfilled his or her expectations [27].
Accordingly, satisfaction can be defined as an experience
Higher education is the education at a college or of fulfillments of an expected outcomes Hon, [26]. Person
university level is perceived as one of most important will satisfy when he /she achieves the expectations, hence
instruments for individual social and economic development it is a willful accomplishment which result in one’s
of a nation [39]. The primary purpose of higher education are contentment [51]. Satisfaction refers to the feeling of
creation of knowledge and dissemination for the development pleasure or disappointment resulting from comparing
of world through innovation and creativity [21]. As well, perceived performance in relation to the expectation
Fortino, [23] claimed creation of prepared minds of students Kotler & Keller, [32]. Customers will satisfy when
as purpose of higher education. Hence, higher education services fit with their expectation [48]. Hence, it is a
institutions are increasingly recognizing and are placing function of relative level of expectation connecting with
greater emphasis on meeting the expectations and needs of people’s perception [39]. When a person perceives that
their customers, that is, the students [16]. So, successful service encountered as good, he would satisfy on the other
completion and enhancement of students’ education are hand person will dissatisfy when his or her perception
the major reasons for the existence of higher educational crash with the service expectation. Therefore, satisfaction
institutions. This positive development in higher education is a perception of pleasurable fulfilment of a service [42].
shows the importance of educational institutions understanding
student satisfaction in a competitive environment [65].
Now the higher education industry is strongly affected by 3. Student Satisfaction
globalization. This has increased the competition among
higher education institutions to adopt market-oriented Students’ satisfaction as a short term attitude, resulting
strategies to be differentiate themselves from their competitors from an evaluation of a students’ educational experiences
to attract as many students as possible satisfying current [19]. It is a positive antecedent of student loyalty [41] and
students’ needs and expectation. Therefore, numerous studies is the result and outcome of an educational system
have been conducted to identify the factors influencing (Zeithaml, 1988). Again Elliot & Shin [20] define student
student satisfaction in higher education. satisfaction as students’ disposition by subjective evaluation
of educational outcomes and experience. Therefore,
student satisfaction can be defined as a function of relative
2. Satisfaction level of experiences and perceived performance about
educational service [39] during the study period, Carey,
Satisfaction is a feeling of happiness that obtain when a et al [10]. By considering all, students’ satisfaction can be
534 American Journal of Educational Research

defined as a short-term attitude resulting from an The investment theory of students’ satisfaction of
evaluation of students’ educational experience, services Hatcher, Prus, Kryter and Fitzgerald illustrated the
and facilities. behavior of students’ satisfaction with academic
performance from investment point of view. According to
3.1. Dimensions of Student Satisfaction the theory, student perceives their time, energy and effort
as investment and seek a return form that. Accordingly,
Students’ satisfaction is a multidimensional process students will satisfy if they are rewarded in relation to the
which is influenced by different factors. According to investment they made [12]. The SERVQUAL measures
Walker-Marshall & Hudson (1999) Grate Point Average students’ satisfaction from organizational point of views
(GPA) is the most influential factor on student satisfaction. but the satisfaction of student is influenced by students’
Marzo-Navarro, et al. [36], Appleton-Knapp & Krentler side also such as their dedication, perception, results,
[9] identified two groups of influences on student attitudes…etc. The gap was filled by Noel-Levitz in 1994
satisfaction in higher education as personal and institutional developing “Noel-Levitz Student Satisfaction Index” for
factors. Personal factors cover age, gender, employment, higher education which covers faculty services, academic
preferred learning style, student’s GPA and institutional experience, student support facilities, campus life and
factors cover quality of instructions, promptness of the social integration. Later, Keaveney and Young (1997)
instructor’s feedback, clarity of expectation, teaching introduced Keaveney and Young’s satisfaction model for
style. Wilkins & Balakrishnan [64] identified quality higher education. It measures the impact of college
of lecturers, quality of physical facilities and effective use experience on students’ satisfaction along faculty services,
of technology as key determinant factors of student advising staff and class type considering experience as a
satisfaction. As well as, student satisfaction in universities mediating variable. But the model is too narrowed into
is greatly influenced by quality of class room, quality few variables and largely ignored university facilities,
of feedback, lecturer-student relationship, interaction lectures, non-academic staffs and services in assessing
with fellow students, course content, available learning satisfaction. Going beyond mediating models, Dollard,
equipment, library facilities and learning materials Cotton and de Jongein introduced “Happy - Productive
[24,33,60]. In addition to that, teaching ability, flexible Theory” in 2002 with a moderating variable. According to
curriculum, university status and prestige, independence, the model students’ satisfaction is moderated by students’
caring of faculty, student growth and development, distress. Consequently, student satisfaction goes up when
student centeredness, campus climate, institutional distress is low and satisfaction goes down when distress is
effectiveness and social conditions have been identified as high. The models were too narrowed into small part of
major determinants of student satisfaction in higher satisfaction.
education [17,45]. Elliot & Shin developed more comprehensive student
satisfaction inventory in 2002 covering 11 dimensions and
3.2. Student Satisfaction Models 116 indicators to measure the satisfactions of students in
higher education industry. The dimensions were academic
This section presents few models and frameworks advising effectiveness, campus climate, campus life,
applied by researchers to uplift students’ satisfactions in campus support services, concern for individual,
higher education literature. The models and frameworks instructional effectiveness, recruitment and effectiveness
have been arranged on chronological order of years to of financial aids, registration effectiveness, campus safety
identify how focus has changed from past to now. and security, service excellence and student centeredness.
SERVQUAL is a most popular widely used service This index covers all services provided by academic
quality model which has been applying to measure and non-academic staff to students as well has touched
students’ satisfaction around the world. SERVQUAL is a physical facilities and other related services being affected
questionnaire that has been designed, developed and tested to students in a university environment. Similarly,
in business environment, by Parasuman in 1985 to Douglas, et al developed “Service Product Bundle”
measure service quality and customer satisfaction of a method in 2006 to investigate influences on student’s
business taking five dimensions into consideration as satisfaction in higher education, taking 12 dimensions in
tangibility, reliability, empathy, responsiveness and to consideration which were professional and comfortable
assurance [63]. That questionnaire was administrated by environment, student assessments and learning
twice, one to measure customer expectation and next to experiences, classroom environment, lecture and tutorial
gain customer perception [63]. Though it is widely applied facilitating goods, textbooks and tuition fees, student
in industry, is much criticized in higher education support facilities, business procedures, relationship with
literature by scholars like; Teas (1992), Buttle (1996), teaching staff, knowledgeable and responsiveness of
Asubonteng, et al (1996), Pariseau & McDaniel (1997), faculty, staff helpfulness, feedback and class sizes. The
Aldridge & Rowley (1998), Waugh, [63]. Being a dimensions were arranged under four variables; physical
government university in a non-profit service industry, it goods, facilitating goods, implicit services and explicit
is difficult to apply business focused service quality model service. Unlike the SERVQUAL, Service Product Bundle
to measure student’s satisfaction as it is. For an example, method provides a more comprehensive range of variables
the model more focuses on service providers’ quality than that influence student satisfaction in higher education.
tangibility. In a university environment, student satisfaction is Jurkowitsch, et al. [28] developed a framework to
determined by multiple factors in which quality of service assess students’ satisfaction and its impact, in higher
providers is a small part. education. In this framework service performance,
 American Journal of Educational Research 535

university performance, relationships with student, dependent variable of overall model and host city, job
university standing works as antecedents of satisfaction prospects, costs of studying, reputation, physical facility
and promotion works the successor. Later, Alves and are working as independent variables of the satisfaction
Raposo developed a conceptual model to assess students’ model. Facility model of the framework, is used to
satisfaction in 2010. According to the model student’s identify the facilities at institute that are most influential in
satisfaction in higher education is determined by formation of student overall satisfaction, therefore
institute’s image, student expectations, perceived technical dependent variable (university facility) of facility model is
quality, functional quality and perceived value. These used as one of explanatory variables in satisfaction model.
influences can be identified directly or indirectly through The model has more focus on university facilities and
other variables. The model further illustrated student little attention was paid into teaching, learning and
loyalty and word of mouth as the main successors of administrative process of institutes but it revealed a new
satisfaction. When student satisfaction upsurge, he will path for scholars precisely combing two separate models
psychologically bound with university and its activities. for satisfaction literature.
That represent level of loyalty he or she has. Different scholars have used different models to assess
Consequences will be spread among friends, relatives, students’ satisfaction in higher education and every model
prospect students and interested parties then and there as is more or less criticized by scholars. As a result, old
word of mouth. The main criticism for the model is that it models have been gradually developed with new insight.
has largely ignored main functions of a university; Following table summarized the satisfaction models
teaching and learning in measuring satisfaction of students developed by various scholars to measure student
but it has been developed adding two successors of satisfaction in higher education.
satisfaction as loyalty and world of mouth. According to Table 1, it seems that various scholars
Moving from conventional satisfaction models, have been taking tremendous efforts to satisfy students in
student’s satisfaction are now measured by hybrid models. higher education touching different areas of satisfaction
Shuxin, et al. [58] developed a conseptual model using various frameworks and models throughout last few
integrating two mainstream analysis: factor analysis and decades. At the beginning, researchers have applied
path analysis. Direct path of the model explains the impact industry satisfaction models and later developed higher
of perceived quality on student loyalty and indirect path education based models to measure the satisfaction. The
describes the impact of perceived quality and student models have been developed using different dimensions
expectation on loyalty through student satisfaction. into consideration and been applied in different
Recently, Hanssen & Solvoll [25] develop a conceptual geographical areas at different times. As a result, same
model combining satisfaction model and facility model. dimensions have shown contradictory relationships with
The satisfaction model was developed to explain how students’ satisfaction at different situations and different
different factors influence on students’ overall satisfaction dimension have shown similar behaviors with students’
and facility model was developed to explain influence of satisfaction around the world. These contrasts have been
university facilities on student overall satisfaction. empirically tested by following scholars through their
According to the model, student satisfaction work as studies.

Table 1. Students’ Satisfaction Models

No Author Year Model

01 Pascarella,Tetenzini 1983 Student Satisfaction Model

02 Parasuraman, A; Berry, L; Zeithaml, V 1985 SERQUAL Model

03 Hatcher, Prus, Kryter and Fitzgerald 1992 Investment Theory

04 Noel-Levtiz 1994 Noel-Levtiz Student Satisfaction Index

05 Dollard, Cotton and de Jonge 2002 Happy Productive Theory

06 Elliot, K.M; Shin, D 2002 Student Satisfaction Model

07 Keaveney and Young’s 1997 Satisfaction Model

08 Abdullah, F. 2005 HEdPERF (Higher Education Performance)

09 Douglas, Jacqueline; Douglas, Alex; Barnes, Barry 2006 Service Product Bundle Method

10 Jurkowitsch, Silke; Vignali, Claudio; Kaufmann, Hans-Rudiger 2006 Student Satisfaction Model

11 Alves, Helena; Raposo, Mario 2010 Conceptual model for satisfaction

12 Shuxin, Guo; Fei, Teng; Jiannan, Guo; Yang, Sun 2014 Satisfaction Evaluation Model

13 Thor-Erik Sandberg Hanssen and GisleSolvoll 2015 Satisfaction Framework

536 American Journal of Educational Research

Table 2. Summery of Satisfaction Models

Author and Year Study Variables

Academic advising, Effectiveness, Campus climate, Campus life
Elliot, K.M. Key factors influencing student Campus support services, Concern for the individual, Instructional
Healy, M.A. satisfaction related to recruitment and effectiveness, Recruitment and financial aid effectiveness,
2001 retention Registration effectiveness, Campus safety and security, Service
excellence, Student centeredness
Mercedes M. Navarro Teaching Staff,
Marta P. Iglesias A new management element for Teaching Method,
universities: satisfaction with the offered
Pilar R. Torres courses Administration,
2005 Enrolment, Infrastructures
Oscar W. DeS. Jr Determinants of business student Faculty,
Ali Kara satisfaction and retention in higher Advising Staff,
ErdenerKaynak education: Classes,
2005 applying Herzberg's two-factor theory student college experience
Professional Environment, Student assessment and Learning
Jacqueline Douglas Alex Douglas experiences, Classroom environment, Lecture and tutorial
Measuring Student Satisfaction at UK facilitating goods, Textbooks and tuition fees, Student support
Barry Barnes
universities facilities, Business procedures, Relationship with the teaching staff,
2006 Knowledgeable and responsive faculty, Staff helpfulness, Feedback,
Class sizes
Ramzi N. Nasser BecharaKhoury University students' knowledge of Academic experience, Academic
Kamal Abouchedid services and programs in relation to advisor, Campus life, Personal development opportunities,
2006 satisfaction Resources and student services.
Qinggang Wang Preparation,
Chinese students' satisfaction of the
Ross Taplin Alistair M. Brown Culture,
study abroad experience
2011 Technical Teaching
Tangibility,
Pathmini MGS
Competence
Wijewardhena WP Impact of Service Quality on Students’
Empathy,
Gamage CT Satisfaction in Newly Established Public
Curriculum,
Gamini LPS Sector Universities in Sri Lanka:
Delivery,
2012
Reliability
S. Farahmandian,
H. Minavand, Perceived service quality and student Student advising, Curriculum , Teaching quality, Financial
M. Afshardost satisfaction in higher education assistance, Tuition costs, Facilities
2013
Stephen Wilkins Melodena Assessing student satisfaction in
Stephens Balakrishnan transnational Lecturers, Program, Assessment and Feedback, Resources,
Technology, Facilities and Social Life.
2013 higher education
Professional and comfortable environment, Student assessments and
MazirahYusoff learning experiences, Classroom environment, Lecture and tutorial
Fraser McLeay Dimensions driving business student facilitating goods, Textbooks and tuition fees, Student support
Helen Woodruffe- Burton satisfaction in higher education facilities, Business procedures, Relationship with teaching staff,
2015 Knowledgeable and responsive faculty, Staff helpfulness, Feedback,
Class sizes
Thor-Erik Sandberg Hanssen G. The importance of university facilities
Solvoll University facilities, Location ,Job prospects, Costs of studying,
for student satisfaction at a Norwegian
Reputation
2015 University

Sami KarnaPaiviJulin A framework for measuring student and Workspace facilities, Laboratory facilities, Teaching facilities,
staff satisfaction with university campus General purpose facilities, Facility maintenance, Campus
2015 facilities accessibility and movement, Outdoor areas
Professional Environment, Student assessment and Learning
MazirahYusoff Fraser McLeay experiences, Classroom environment, Lecture and tutorial
Helen Woodruffe-Burton Dimensions driving business student facilitating goods, Textbooks and tuition fees, Student support
satisfaction in higher education facilities, Business procedures, Relationship with the teaching staff,
2015 Knowledgeable and responsive faculty, Staff helpfulness, Feedback,
Class sizes
Faculty services,
An examination of factors contributing Academic experience
Nara Martirosyan
to student satisfaction in Armenian Student support facilities
2015
higher education Campus life
Social integration
 American Journal of Educational Research 537

reported a significantly higher satisfaction level than their

peers at public institutions. Andrea and Benjamin [8],
4. Empirical Research Findings examined students' satisfaction with university location
based on Dunedin city, New Zealand. The study indicated
A study conducted by Garcl a-Aracil [24] in eleven that students at the University of Otago perceive
European Countries, found that student satisfaction across accommodation, socializing, sense of community, safety
different European Countries was relatively stable despite and cultural scene as most important attributes of
the differences in education systems. The study further university location. The study further identified shopping
realized that contacts with fellow students, course content, and dining, appeal and vibrancy, socializing and sense of
learning equipment, stocking of libraries, teaching quality community and public transport as key drivers of overall
and teaching/learning materials have significant influence satisfaction with the university location. DeShields Jr. in
on the students’ satisfaction. Wilkins & Balakrishnan [64] 2005 to investigate the factors contributing to student
founnd that quality of lecturers, quality and availability of satisfaction and retention based on Herzberg’s two-factor
resources and effective use of technology have significant theory. It found that student who have positive college
influence on students’ satisfaction in transnational higher experience are more satisfy with the university than that of
education in United Arab Emirates. The study further students who haven’t experiences.
revealed that there are significant differences of Kanan & Baker [29] attempted to examine the efficacy
satisfactions at undergraduate and postgraduate levels. of academic educational programs based on Palestinian
Karna & Julin [30] conducted a study on staff and developing universities. The study found that academic
students’ satisfaction about university facilities in Finland. programs make significantly impact on students’
The study found that core university activities, such as satisfaction. Navarro [41] examined the impact of degree
research and teaching facilities, have greater impacts on program on students’ satisfaction in Spanish University
overall students’ and staff satisfaction than supportive System. The result indicated that teaching staff, teaching
facilities. Further, study found that both academic and methods and course administration have significant effect
students perceive physical facilities are more important on students’ satisfaction in Spanish University System.
than general infrastructures in which library facilities are Palacio, et al., [44] investigated the impact of university
the best explanatory factor of overall satisfaction. In image on students’ satisfaction. The study found that
addition, study indicated that students satisfied with university image of Spanish University System make a
factors related to comfortable learning environment, significant impact on students’ satisfaction. Malik, et al.
public spaces, campus accessibility and staff satisfied with [34] explored the impact of service quality on students’
laboratory and teaching facilities. Finally, overall results satisfaction in higher education and it was found that
indicated that the factors related to the research and cooperation, kindness of administrative staff, responsiveness
teaching activities have the greatest impacts on the overall of the educational system play a vital role in determining
satisfaction of both groups in Finland. students’ satisfaction. Pathmini, et al [49] identified
Douglas [17] measured students’ satisfaction at Faculty reliability, curriculum and empathy as major determinant
of Business and Law, Liverpool John Moores University factor of student satisfaction in regional state universities.
Malaysia. The study found that physical facilities of The findings further accentuated that administrators of
university are not significantly important with regards to regional universities should focus their attention more on
students’ satisfaction but it works as key determinant of these three factors other than tangibility, competence and
students’ choice in selecting universities. Yusoff et al, [65] delivery. Farahmandian, et al. [22] investigated the levels
identified12 underlying variables that significantly of students’ satisfaction and service quality of
influence students’ satisfaction in Malaysian higher International Business School, University Teknologi
education setting. Accordingly, professional comfortable Malaysia. According to the findings, academic advising,
environment, student assessment and learning experiences, curriculum, teaching quality, financial assistance, tuition
classroom environment, lecture and tutorial facilitating fee and university facilities have significant impact on
goods, textbooks and tuition fees, student support facilities, students’ satisfaction. Khan [31] discussed the impact of
business procedures, relationship with the teaching staff, service quality on levels of students’ satisfaction at
knowledgeable and responsive faculty, staff helpfulness, Heailey College of Commerce, Pakistan. The findings
feedback, and class sizes make significant impact on indicated that except tangibility, other dimension of
students’ satisfaction. The study further identified that service quality have a significant impact on students’
year of study, program of study and semester grade have satisfaction. It means that students don’t rate institute on
significant impact on student support facilities and class the basis of building and physical appearance but on
sizes. Martirosyan [35] examined the impact of selected quality of education. Study further explored that students
variables on students’ satisfaction in Armenia. Light of the willing to put extra efforts on education when the level of
study identified reasonable curriculum and faculty satisfaction is high.
services as key determinants of student satisfaction. As Alvis and Rapaso [6], investigated the influence of
well, study found negative relationships of faculty university image on student satisfaction and loyalty in
teaching styles and graduate teaching assistants with Portugal. The findings of the study indicated that
students’ satisfaction. The study also examined the effects university image has both direct and indirect effect on
of demographic variables on students’ satisfaction. Out of student satisfaction and loyalty. Nasser et al [40]
the several variables associated with student satisfaction, investigated university student knowledge about services
type of institution effect on students’ satisfaction and program in relation to their satisfaction at Lebanese
significantly in which students from private institutions Catholic College. The study found that student those who
538 American Journal of Educational Research

have high knowledge on university procedure, rules and [15] Cronin, J. & Taylor, S., 1992. Measuring service quality: re-
regulation, may hold greater educational value and thus examination and extension. Journal of Marketing, pp. 55-68.
[16] DeShields Jr, O. W., Ali, K. & Erdener, K., 2005. Determinants of
have greater satisfaction levels. Hanssen & Solvoll, [25] business student satisfaction and retention in higher education:
identified that reputation of the institution, attractiveness applying Herzberg's two-factor theory. International Journal of
of host university city and quality of facilities have strong Educational Management, 19(2), pp. 128-139.
influencing powers on students’ satisfaction however job [17] Douglas, J., Douglas, A. & Barnes, B., 2006. Measuring student
prospects failed to influence significantly on the satisfaction satisfaction at a UK university. Quality Assurance in Education,
pp. 251-267.
in Norwegian university system. Study further identified [18] Elliot, K. & Shin, D., 2002. Student satisfaction: an alternative
that social areas, auditoriums and libraries are the physical approach to assessing this important concept. Journal of Higher
factors that most strongly influence on students satisfaction. Education Policy and Management, pp. 197-209.
Ali, et al., [4] found academic aspect, non-academic [19] Elliott, K. & Healy, M., 2001. Key factors influencing student
satisfaction related to recruitment and retention. Journal of
aspect, and access, reputation, and program issues as
Marketing for Higher Education, pp. 1-11.
greater influencing factors of students’ satisfaction. [20] Elliott, K. & Shin, D., 2002. Student satisfaction: an alternative
With the development of higher education in the world, approach to assessing this Important Concept. Journal of Higher
the importance of students’ satisfaction was emerged in Education Policy and Management,, pp. 97-109.
the literature of higher education. At the beginning, [21] Escotet, M. A., 2012. Scholarly Blog. [Online] Available at:
http://miguelescotet.com/2012/what-is-the-purpose-of-higher-
industry based satisfaction models were applied to explain education knowledge-or-utility/[Accessed 2 5 2017].
student satisfaction and later developed higher education [22] Farahmandian, S., Minavand, H. & Afshard, M., 2013. Perceived
based models to explain it. The paper was discussed the service quality and student satisfaction in higher education.
theoretical and empirical literature of higher education Journal of Business and Management, pp. Volume 12, Issue 4 , PP
with the intension of enhancing existing stock of 65-74.
[23] Fortino, A., 2012. The Purpose of Higher Education: To Create
knowledge. The theoretical review proved that satisfaction Prepared Minds. [Online] Available at:
is a psychological process and is affected by many factors https://evolllution.com/opinions/the-purpose-of-higher-education-
in different settings. to-create-prepared-minds/[Accessed 2 5 2017].
[24] Garcl a-Aracil, A., 2009. European graduates’ level of satisfaction
with higher education. Journal of Higher Education, 57(1),
References [25]
pp. 1-21.
Hanssen, T.-E. S. & Solvoll, G., 2015. The importance of
university facilities for student satisfaction at a Norwegian
[1] Abdullah, F., 2006. Measuring service quality in higher education: University. Facilities, pp. 744-759.
HEdPERF versus SERVPERF. Marketing Intelligence and
Planning, pp. 31-47.
[26] Hon, w., 2002. Applying customer satisfaction theory to
community college planning of student services. Insight in Student
[2] Aigbavboa, C. & Thwala, W., 2013. A Theoretical Framework of
Services, p. Vol. 2.
Users’ Satisfaction/Dissatisfaction Theories and Models. Pattaya,
2nd International Conference on Arts, Behavioral Sciences and
[27] Ilyas, M. & Arif, S., 2013. Quality of work-life model for teachers
of private universities in. Quality Assurance in Education,
Economics Issues.
pp. 282-298.
[3] Aldridge, S. & Rowley, J., 1998. Measuring customer satisfaction
in higher education. Quality Assurance in Education, 6(4), pp.
[28] Jurkowitsch, S., Vignali, C. & Kaufmann, H.-R., 2006. A Student
Satisfaction Model of Austrian Higher Education. Innovative
197-204.
Marketing, 2(3), pp. 9-21.
[4] Ali, F. et al., 2016. Does higher education service quality effect
student satisfaction, image and Loyalty. Quality Assurance in
[29] Kanan, H. M. & Baker, A. M., 2006. Student satisfaction with an
educational administration preparation program. Journal of
Education, pp. 70-94.
Educational Administration, 44(2), pp. 159-169.
[5] Alves, H. & Raposo, M., 2010. The influence of university image
on student behaviour. International journal of Educational
[30] Karna, S. & Julin, P., 2015. A framework for measuring student
and staff satisfaction with university campus facilities. Quality
Management, pp. 73-85.
Assurance in Education, pp. 47-61.
[6] Alvis, H. & Rapaso, M., 2006. Conceptual model of Student
Satisfaction in Higher Education. Total Quality Management and
[31] Khan, M. M., Ahmed, I. & Nawaz, M. M., 2011. Student’s
Perspective of Service Quality in Higher Learning Institutions; An
Business Excellence, 17(9), p. 1261-1278.
evidence Based Approach. International Journal of Business and
[7] Anderson, E., 1973. Consumer Dissatisfaction: The Effect of Social Science, 2(11), pp. 159-164.
Disconfirmed Expectancy on Perceived Product Performance.
Journal of Marketing Research, 10(2), pp. 38-44.
[32] Kotler, P. & Keller, K., 2012. Marketing Management. NJ:
Prentice Hall.
[8] Andrea, I. & Benjamin, S., 2013. University students' needs and
satisfaction with their host city. Journal of Place Management and
[33] Kuh, G. & Hu, S., 2001. The effects of student-faculty interaction
in the 1990s. Review of Higher Education, 24(3), pp. 309-332.
Development, 6(3), pp. 178-191.
[9] Appleton-Knapp, S. & Krentler, K., 2006. Measuring student
[34] Malik, M. E., Danish, R. Q. & Usman, A., 2010. The Impact of
Service Quality on Students’ Satisfaction in Higher Education
expectations and their effects on satisfaction: the importance of
Institutes of Punjab. Journal of Management Research, pp. 1-11.
managing student expectations. Journal of Marketing Education,
pp. 254-264. [35] Martirosyan, N., 2015. An examination of factors contributing to
student satisfaction in Armenian higher education. International
[10] Carey, K., Cambiano, R. & De Vore, J., 2002. Student to faculty
Journal of Educational Management, - 29(2), pp. 177-191.
satisfaction at a Midwestern university in the USA. pp. 93-97.
[11] Carter, P., 2014. A CASE STUDY OF STUDENT SATISFACTION.
[36] Marzo-Navarro, M., Iglesias, M. & Torres, M., 2005. A new
management element for universities: satisfaction with the offered
s.l., Kyushu Sangyo University.
courses. International Journal of Educational Management, 19(6),
[12] Carter, P., Kakimoto , E. & Miura, K., 2014. Investigating student pp. 505-526.
satisfaction in an English communication course: A pilot study..
pp. 57-65.
[37] Mattila, A., Gradey, A. & Fisk, G., 2003. The interplay of gender
and affective tone in service encounter satisfaction. Journal of
[13] Cassel, C. & Eklo, F., 2001. Modelling customer satisfaction and Service Research, 6(2), pp. 136-143.
loyalty on aggregate levels – experience from the ECSI pilot study.
In: Saint: s.n., pp. 307-1.
[38] Mattila, A. & O’Neill, J., 2003. Relationships between Hotel
Room Pricing, Occupancy, and Guest Satisfaction: A Longitudinal
[14] Clemes, M., Gan, C. & Kao, T., 2007. University student
Case of a Midscale Hotel in the United States. Journal of
satisfaction: an empirical Analysis. Journal of Marketing for Hospitality & Tourism Research, 27(3), pp. 328-341.
Higher Education, pp. 292-25.
 American Journal of Educational Research 539

[39] Mukhtar, U., Anwar, S., Ahmed, U. & Baloch, M. A., 2015. [52] Richardson, J., 2005. Instruments for obtaining student feedback:
Factors effecting the service quality of public and private sector a review of the literature. Assessment and Evaluation in Higher
universities comparatively: an empirical investigation. Arts, Education, pp. 387-415.
Science & Commerce, pp. 132-142. [53] Richardson, J., 2005. Instruments for obtaining student feedback:
[40] Nasser, R., Khoury, B. & Abouchedid, K., 2008. University a review of the literature. Assessment and Evaluation in Higher
students’ knowledge of services and programs in relation to Education, 30(4), pp. 387-415.
satisfaction. Quality Assurance in Education, 16(1), pp. 80-97. [54] Robbins, S. P., Judge, T. A. & Vohora, N., 2014. Attitude and
[41] Navarro, M. M., Iglesias, M. P. & Torres, P. R., 2005. A new Satisfaction. In: Organizational Behaviour. Delhi: Prentice Hall,
management element for universities: satisfaction with the offered pp. 64-89.
courses. International Journal of Educational Management, 19(6), [55] Saif, N. I., 2014. The Effect of Service Quality on Student
pp. 505-526. Satisfaction: A Field Study for Health Services Administration
[42] Oliver, R., 1997. Satisfaction: A Behavioral Perspective on the Students. International Journal of Humanities and Social Science,
Consumer. New York: McGraw-Hill. pp. 172-181.
[43] Olson, J. & Dover, P., 1979. Disconfirmation of consumer [56] Sawyerr, P. T. & Yusof, N. A., 2013. Student satisfaction with
expectations through product trial. Journal of Applied Psychology, hostel facilities in Nigerian polytechnics. Journal of Facilities
Volume 64, pp. 179-189. Management, 11(4), pp. 306-322.
[44] Palacio, A. B., Meneses, G. D. & Perez Perez, P. J., 2002. The [57] Shaltoni, A. M., Khraim, H., Abuhama, A. & Amer, M., 2015.
configuration of the university image and its relationship with the Exploring students’ satisfaction with universities’ portals in
satisfaction of students. Journal of Educational Administration, developing countries: A Cultural Perspective. The International
40(5), pp. 486-505. Journal of Information and Learning Technology, pp. 82-93.
[45] Palacio, A., Meneses, G. & Perez, P., 2002. The configuration [58] Shuxin, G., Fei, T., Jiannan, G. & Yang, S., 2014. The
of the university image and its relationship with the satisfaction construction of college student’s satisfaction model based on
of students. Journal of Educational Administration, 40(5), structural equation model. Journal of Chemical and
pp. 486-505. Pharmaceutical Research, 6(6), pp. 164-169.
[46] Parasuraman, A., Berry, L. & Zeithaml, V., 1985. A conceptual [59] Sigala, M. & Sakellaridis, O., 2004. Web users’ cultural profiles
model of service quality and its implications for future research. and e-service quality: internationalization implications for tourism
Journal of Marketing, pp. 41-50. websites. Information Technology and Tourism, pp. 13-22.
[47] Parayitam, S., Desail, K. & Phelps, L., 2007. The Effect of [60] Sojkin, B., Bartkowiak, P. & Skuza, A., 2012. Determinants of
Teacher Communication and Course Content On Student higher education choices and student satisfaction: the case of
Satisfaction and Effectiveness. Academy of Educational Poland. Higher Education, 63 (5), pp. 565-81.
Leadership Journal, 11(3), p. 16. [61] Vavra, T. G., 1997. Improving Your Measurement of Customer
[48] Petruzzellis, L., D’Uggento, A. M. & Romanazzi, S., 2006. Satisfaction: A Guide to Creating, Conducting, Analyzing, and
Student satisfaction and quality of service in Italian universities. Reporting Customer Satisfaction Measurement Programs.
Managing Service Quality, pp. 349-364. Americal Society for Quality, pp. 44-60.
[49] Pathmini, M., Wijewardhena, W., Gamage, C. & Gamini, L., 2014. [62] Voss, R., 2009. Studying critical classroom encounters: The
Impact of Service Quality on Students’ Satisfaction in Newly experiences of students in German college education. Quality
Established Public Sector Universities in Sri Lanka: Study Based Assurance in Education, pp. 156-173.
on The Faculty of Management Studies. Journal of Management [63] Waugh, R. F., 2002. Academic staff perceptions of administrative
Matters, pp. 51-64. quality at universities. Journal of Educational Administration,
[50] Peyton, R., Pitts, S. & Kamery, H., 2003. Consumer 40(2), pp. 172-188.
Satisfaction/Dissatisfaction (CS/D): A Review of the Literature [64] Wilkins, S. & Balakrishnan, M. S., 2013. Assessing student
Prior to the 1990s. s.l., Proceedings of the Academy of satisfaction in transnational higher education. International
Organizational Culture. Journal of Educational Management, pp. 146-153.
[51] Rad, A. & Yarmohammadian, M., 2006. A study of relationship [65] Yusoff, M., McLeay, F. & Woodruffe-Burto, H., 2015.
between managers’ leadership style and employees’ job Dimensions driving business student satisfaction in higher
satisfaction. Leadership in Health Services, pp. 11-26. education. Quality Assurance in Education, pp. 86-104.

View publication stats